Timeline for How do I participate in Treasury auctions with my millions of dollars?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2011 at 17:55 | history | edited | Muro | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added details on how auction process works.
|
| Aug 30, 2010 at 17:47 | vote | accept | Michael Pryor | ||
| Aug 22, 2010 at 21:35 | comment | added | cgp | You're right, sorry George! Kudos to you. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 15:19 | comment | added | Muro | @George - alright mom, we'll stop fighting. :) | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 14:21 | comment | added | George Marian | @altCognito (and Muro as well, who will get a notification as I am posting a comment to his answer) While I would enjoy reading more of this debate and would even enjoy taking part, this is not the proper venue for such a discussion, it is off the topic of how one participates in Treasury auctions and it is quite argumentative. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 12:14 | comment | added | Muro | The only person accountable for me is me. The FED creates secure, stable markets? I guess the S&L banking crisis, Long Term Capital Management, Great Depression, inflations of the 70's, tech boom, and the latest crisis can all be ignored. Prior to the FED Americans were FREE to use whatever currency they wanted. Talk about a way to create secure, stable markets. | |
| Aug 20, 2010 at 5:43 | comment | added | cgp | Which is more private and accountable to the people of the United States?: Individuals and corporations or the elected federal government? You can be cynical as you want, but for all their faults and failings, congress still answers to the American people (as flawed as the American people can be as well). So, while the FED manipulates the money supply, it does so for the purposes of a mandate established by the people: create secure, stable markets. The FEDs motives and actions have proven over a nearly 100 year history to generally do the right thing. (see economic history prior to the FED) | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 22:30 | comment | added | Muro | @altCognito So the gold market can be manipulated but having a totally private, unaudited, unanswerable institution manage paper money will not have manipulation? I can't follow that logic. It's far easier to manipulate paper money when one institution can print it at will. I realize that printing money does not always equal an increase in prices. This was true before the great depression as the FED increased the money supply but prices did not rise (except in stocks). Productivity also has an effect on prices. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 20:14 | comment | added | cgp | @Muro Not repaying in gold does not equal default even if that was the agreement between nations. The gold standard is dangerous and leaves countries susceptible to "runs" on gold. Manipulating the gold market is easy, and with the size of institutions today, I wouldn't trust them for a second. I'm sure you remember the Hunt brothers. Think of that times a thousand. I'm also sure you realize that printing money != inflation. There are far more factors that influence the money supply. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38 | comment | added | Muro | @altCognito - The US has defaulted. The Bretton Woods agreement established the dollar as a reserve currency. Other nations would hold their reserves in US dollars with the agreement that they could always exchange the dollars for gold at $35 ounce. When France said they wanted to redeem to their dollars for gold in 1971 the US (i.e. Nixon) said "no" and defaulted on the promise. I agree the US will not default on its bonds. The FED will continue to print money, as they recently announced, to pay the bonds. This is almost the same as default since you'll be paid in debased dollars. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 6:30 | comment | added | cgp | Safe in the sense they are guaranteed to pay. Because, while you're a really smart fellow, can you name the last time the US government has defaulted? The answer is no, no you can't, because the US government has never, I repeat never defaulted on it's debt. 225 years and counting. If your complaint is that 2.5% isn't much money, I'll agree with that, yet they remain attractive to many. (but since your complaint is about lending the money to the government, I'm guessing that's not your complain) | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 2:32 | history | answered | Muro | CC BY-SA 2.5 |